I was forced to.
I might play it once but it would be hard to get me to play it again. And I don't think I would want to buy something I would never play a second time!
Historical insights are fine but we are subject to the vagaries of the designer's interpretations of these events and limits of their game design. As Mark, Michael, jrv & others have intimated, it is the designers responsibility (yes, responsibility) to present a workable game mechanic to present a competitive experience based upon his perception of historical events. JMHO
Are you saying the CG game was released as unbalanced? That would be disturbing if so.
So. You say it's dead. Okay.
How many battles of a forlorn nature have been made into games? I've played many, including ASL scenarios, where one side was deemed unwinnable. I found no feeling of loss, or cheat, at the fact, just the desire to perhaps improve on the historical result. Embraced the challenge, as it were, regardless of the outcome.
I don't get my historical insights from games. I do, however, get the satisfaction of crushing my enemies.
At a guess...you drink Dos Equis? Bien Provecho.
This sounds like a description of Lone Canuck's 'Hell's Highway' HASL, which in my playing experience seems to be absolutely un-winnable for the allied player. Apart from the incredible deluge of Panthers and German halftracks in the CG, the module appears to otherwise do a decent job of portraying a failed allied campaign.
That could be considered a historical insight. ?
I'd say, "maybe I'm just a bit off-center" but I think that train left the station a long, long time ago, but I get a kick out of Market Garden, Gettysburg, Borodino, Waterloo, the Bulge Stalingrad...
I haven't played any games based upon Borodino or Waterloo, although I am certainly interested in doing so. I've played and been fascinated by any games portraying Gettysburg, the Bulge or Stalingrad, and would happily play any of them again. Market-Garden, if it is to be in any way historically accurate, requires certain restrictions upon the allied player which will inevitably influence the game's play. The drive towards the drop zones by the British armor on the narrow highway being a prime example. Dropping the Polish paratroops in to a lost cause being another. Market-Garden is certainly a fascinating campaign to study and read about, but from a purely ASL/gaming standpoint, if just doesn't 'float my boat'. I wouldn't have any interest in playing an HASL about the fall of Singapore either.
The battle terminated Lee's invasion of the North. It did not decide the Civil War, which went on for almost two more years with many major battles. So whether you it was decisive depends upon which decision you are considering.
A properly-led Union Army probably should have beaten a properly-led Confederate Army in the circumstances. But in battle things often don't go like the numbers say they should. The Union lost at Chancellorsville, when by objective measures they were stronger. Similarly the Germans smashed the Soviets in 1941, and purely by the numbers that should not have happened.
It was a meeting engagement and on the first day the Confederates significantly outnumbered the Union. But this is rather offtopic.
If the Union had been chased off the field on the first day it probably wouldn't have been the Battle of Gettysburg.
You must be new here. Welcome! We're sure glad to have you join us!
